ASHOK RAMANBHAI CHAUHAN,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BHARUCH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 565/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 June 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require an opportunity of being heard before making additions. Since the order was passed ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-appearance, upholding an addition of Rs. 10,53,030/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee claimed the dismissal violated natural justice due to unavoidable circumstances.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-appearance without adjudicating on merits, violating principles of natural justice. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 80C,Section 144,Section 148,Section 253(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH SMC, SURAT

Before: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Rao, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Hearing: 30.04.2026Pronounced: 16.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH "SMC", SURAT Before: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member ITA No: 565/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Ashok Ramanbhai Chauhan, Vs ITO, At & Post – Rahiyad, Mandir Ward – 1(1), Faliyu, Taluka – Vagra, Bharuch Bharuch – 392130 PAN: AMOPC3509N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Mukund Rao, AR Revenue Represented by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 30.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.06.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals ADDL/JCIT(A)-5, Chennai, [In short, ‘the JCIT(A)’] dated 26.02.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance and not adjudicating the case on merits, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

I.T.A No.565/SRT/2025/AY.2012-13 Page No 2 Ashok Ramanbhai Chauhan vs. ITO

2.

The Appellant Prays and appeals that the Learned ITO-Ward 1(1), Bharuch has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 10,53,030/- and disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Appellant therefore prays and appeals that; (1) Addition made on account of Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act Rs. 10,53,030/- be quashed. (2) Disallowance of deduction claimed in the return of income filed of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 80C be allowed. The Appellant reserves his right to modify, alter, amend, and add to the Grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing as he thinks fit and appropriate." 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 16 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that the delay was caused due to a medical emergency in his family. His mother-in-law was seriously ill and required continuous care and attention. The assessee submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and due to unavoidable circumstances, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue did not have any objection if the delay is condoned. 4. We have considered the preliminary issue and find that there is a delay of 16 days. We find that assessee has not deliberately filed the appeal on time. The reasons given in the affidavit for

I.T.A No.565/SRT/2025/AY.2012-13 Page No 3 Ashok Ramanbhai Chauhan vs. ITO

condonation of delay would constitute ‘sufficient cause’ for delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is an agriculturist and having water selling income during the year under consideration. The assessee had not filed his return of income. The case was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act after obtaining approval of the Pr.CIT-3, Vadodara. On verification of ITS statement (AIR Information), the Assessing Officer (for short, ‘AO’) observed that the assessee had deposited Rs.10,52,000/- in the Bank of Baroda. The assessee failed to furnish details/evidence as and when called for. In absence of details/documentary evidence, the AO left with no option but to pass an ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Act based on materials available on record. The AO, thus, made addition of Rs.10,53,030/- being unexplained cash deposit and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, despite given several opportunities of being heard, the appellant, failed to respond. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, relying upon the judgements of

I.T.A No.565/SRT/2025/AY.2012-13 Page No 4 Ashok Ramanbhai Chauhan vs. ITO

Supreme Courts in cases of (i) CIT vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Ors., (1979) 10 CTR 354 (SC) and (ii) M/s Chemipol vs. UOI, Central Excise No.62 of 2009 (Bom.), held that preferring an appeal, means effectively pursuing it also. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 7. Aggrieved against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed present appeal before this Tribunal. It was submitted that the assessee could not appear before the lower authorities and failed to submit the necessary details due to unavoidable circumstances and requested for one more opportunity to explain its case before the AO. 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material availed on record. We are of the opinion that principles of natural justice demands that no addition should be made without giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since, the impugned order was passed ex-parte, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of JAO for giving the appellant adequate opportunity of being heard to

I.T.A No.565/SRT/2025/AY.2012-13 Page No 5 Ashok Ramanbhai Chauhan vs. ITO

explain its case. The appellant is also directed to provide all documents and evidences before the JAO to explain its case without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 10. In the result, the appeal of the is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under the provisions of Rule 34 of IT(AT) Rules, 1963 on 16/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Dated 16/06/2026 *Ranjan आदेश�ȧĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/ Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT. 6. Guard file. By order/आदेशसे,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����, सूरत

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →